The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-03-01
THE LIBEL POSTING FEES.
A Statement from the County Com
nnlssioners-
PoRrLANp. Feb. 3. lss7.

nnIssioners-
PORTLAND, Feb. %, 1887.
| To the Editor Of the Press:
An article In the Evening Express" Of
the 26th inst. on Liquor Fees in Portland"
contains seme statements which are so mis-
leading and Inaccurate as to call for reply.
| The situation Is as follows
| The County Commissioners found on in
vestigation that the County had been paying
from its treasury large sums Of money yearly
amounting the last year 10 more than two
thousand dollars to the Recorder Of the Mu-
nicipal Court, In addition to his salary,
which is eight hundred dollars with an al
| lowance Of two hundred dollars for clerk
l hire, and which the statutes provides shall
| be Sin full for all services" and that these
large sums we're paid him under provision
| Of law which allows the judge Of the court
| 20 designate some person TO post lbels, and
10 receive therefor the sum Of one dollar for
| each libel posted. The posting is all done in
| the City Building, and Is a matter Of but two
| or three minutes work The Commissioners
asked that these fees might be reduced.
The Commissioners further found that
| certain court fees, amounting TO one dollar
| and five cents on libel cases we're charged
| and allowed TO city officers and ultimately
'Tere paid to the city. 1t seemed TO the Com
missiouels that such payments ought not TO
be made in view Of the fact that all the ex-
penses of the court, except the salary Of the
Judge, were paid by the county, and the
Commissioners asked that those fees be abol-
shed.
They also thought that the fees for the
hal nd Qxa n
same. which amounts TO one dollar, should DO
reduced One-haH
Believing that all these changes were in
the interest of the whole people, and that a
a fair presentation Of their case was all that
was necessary TO bring about remedy, they
addressed themselves to the Legislature, ask
ing that such changes might be made. A
hearing was had before the judiciary COM
mittee, and they were surprised to find them
selves met by an ex-judge Of the Municipal
Court, and the County Attorney OF this c0un-
ty, who, without attempting 70 contradict
the facts as stated in this communication,
argued TO the committee that no change
should be made so far as the Recorder OF the
Municipal Court of this city was concerned,
saying that last year was an exceptional
year, and that the Recorder Of the Municipal
Court was a hard worked young man and
was receiving no more pay than his services
were worth. Considering the fact that he
drew Sl5l7.64 in the year 1885; Sl579.5O In the
year 1884; and S1342. 80 in the year 1883, In
L y
| his court are not such as TO require his time
personally more than small part Of each
day, and that in addition thereto he has In
his employ a youGg lady clerk who does
most OF his work, and believing further that
there were many young men attSe Bar who
would be glad to accept his position tor the
| salary, and do all its work without addition
| al pay, we did not believe that such argu-
| ments would prevail with the judiciary com
mittee and result in an adverse reports
Much to our surprise, and without anyanQ-
tice to us, an adverse report was made to th6N
House. and without a protest from any rep
resentative Of the city or county, the report
| was accepted.
Immediately ON learning these facts. we
| became satisfied that the matter was not ful-
| ly understood by the members Of the Legis-
lature, and that there must have been some
| mtsappTehensiOn as 10 the object we had IA
view, which was not fairly disclosed oy the
| order that had been introduced.
We thereupOn again addressed ourselves 70
the Legislature in the form Of a Dill, asking
| for certain general legislation 10 reach the
results desired, rather than special legisla-
ton as originally asked for. The bill was
referred to the committee ON legal affairs,
but suddenly received check 0y being iald
| on the table, on melton OF a member Oh the
| judiciary committee.
TIE County Commissioners believe that
| on a fair showing before the Legislature re-
lief can be obtained, and they propose TO
present to the Legislature a new bill, which
| will work the desired result, and which Is
| not subject TO the objection which a promi-
nent member Of the lobby was heard to state
would be made TO the old bill. saying that
/ lit would be ruled out of order as present
| ing matter already acted upon"
We now propose TO ask the Legislature OF
| the State Of Maine 10 amend section 63 OF
chapter q Of the Revised statutes by adding
the following words: Provided that IN
towns OF cities in which recorder or clerk
of police OF municipal court Is paid sala-
| ry, IL shall be the duty OF said recorder or
clerk to make and post all libels, and no fees
| shall be allowed therefor"
| This matter has never been presented 10
| the Legislature before, IL has never been
passed upon by the Judiciary committee, and
| II the Legislature Is disposed to relieve the
| inhabitants Of the County Of Cumberland
from a burden which uDjustly rests upon
| them, in the opinion Of your Commissioners,
no opposition win be made in any quarter to
this bill.
should be made by what means and from
what sources opposition has heretofore
been offered TO our efforts In the above mat.
ters. We have been surprised to find
certain influences apparently at work
In the interest Of the Recorder Of
the Municipal Court Of this city to thwart
any change of the law which shall take from
| him this large addition to his salary. when
makes his position more valuable In money
point Of view than that Of the judge Of the
Superior Court.
| that some persons TO whom we should naJur-
ally look for assistance and support In pro
tecting the interests Of the county have
failed us thus far, IL may be through mis-
prehensiOn OF the case, but from whatever
cause 10 the manifest detriment, as u seems
| TO us. of the inhabitants Of this county.
We have addressed you thus openly 80
that there may be no misapprehensi0n in the
minds Of the pablic as to what we are trying
to effect and the difficulties we have thus far
| met with
The Express article says the County Com
missioners failed to make any point clear TO
the committee save that, under the law as
. | ~ uUw stands, tho cttI vi psstl~s4 naa4s a
! clear profit on the business Of It's MUNICIPAL
! Court of some 5000 year"
l . In reply we would say that our appeal 70
) the Legislature was not addressed 10 the
question simply OF how much the city OF
5 Portland was making out OF the Municipal
Court, but was directed to the point thai
the Recorder of the Municipal Court, as wei
. ! as the city, were receiving fees which, In
/ | our judgment, were burden to the county
treasury, and which should be suppressed
t II we attempted to make anything
clear TO that committee II was
the fact that the Recorder Of the
! ! Municipal Court was receiving Tor the per
? formance Of his duties as clerk Of an inferior
court much larger compensation relatively
than is paid TO the judges Of our highes
court, and II there was any member OF thu
committee who did not realize OF apprehenC
this point, it must have been from inabilit!
on our part to clearly express ourselves.
Respectfully yours.
HENRY NUTTER,
Y JOSEPH B. HAMMOND.